If it isn't, then holding him in contempt is an end-around the due process.

If someone is infected with totally drug resistant tuberculous, is he entitled to be charged with a crime (which one?), indicted by a grand jury, and given a full blown jury trial before he may be quarantined?

If it isn't, then holding him in contempt is an end-around the due process.

If someone is infected with totally drug resistant tuberculous, is he entitled to be charged with a crime (which one?), indicted by a grand jury, and given a full blown jury trial before he may be quarantined?

Seriously? You're comparing bypassing due process in the case of probable fraud to a contagious disease that can kill lots of people?

Is there any indication that putting this guy in jail was to _prevent_ criminal behavior rather than as punishment for past acts? Any indication at all other than your extremely inept analogy?

The judge was given a lot of evidence he was lying. There was a record at trial. You seem to have a blind spot for that.

Either it's enough evidence to prosecute him with, or it isn't.

If it is, then charge him with a crime.

If it isn't, then holding him in contempt is an end-around the due process.

This confuses me. If a person is trying to decieve the court in a trial you are expecting another trial to occur where the matter before that court is the issue of deception in the previous trial?

Why am I sensing some sort of infinite regress?

How is perjury normally handled? Or fraud in civil cases? Why is this case special?

There is no infinite regress because he was never charged with a crime in the first place. Once he's charged with the crime, the evidence is presented, and he is either convicted or found innocent, then due process has been satisfied.

If it isn't, then holding him in contempt is an end-around the due process.

If someone is infected with totally drug resistant tuberculous, is he entitled to be charged with a crime (which one?), indicted by a grand jury, and given a full blown jury trial before he may be quarantined?

I don't think his bail terms ($3 million) needed to be reduced. We're not talking about simply letting him out. We're talking about ending detention at the whim of a judge.

the determination by the court of ability to comply was reached without a burden of proof appropriate to the severity of punishment.

The severity of the punishment was never determined. It was indefinite in the literal sense. Hard to see exactly how you could change that without creating perverse incentives to hold out.

If I understand the history of the case correctly he had a chance to collaterally attack his confinement, not only in front of a different judge, but in front of a different sovereign (i.e. federal).

I think its pretty simple to prevent a perverse incentive in cases like the one we're discussing. Once the defendant is found in contempt, that defendant is imprisoned in county for a relatively short time period (say 30 days), with that time span being the amount of time allowed for the defendant to make good faith efforts to correct the action/inaction that led to the contempt charge and avoid further repercussions. After said time period is up, the defendant is now charged with a criminal offense, and proceeds through the criminal court system with the trial being presided over by a different judge. This provides three benefits. One, the defendant is subject to a more firmly coercive penalty (fix it or get convicted as a criminal and sent to jail for real). Two, the defendant is now held to the standards of criminal law and justice before he/she may be imprisoned for a period of time matching a criminal conviction. Three, there is no longer the possibility of imprisoning a person for an undefined and open-ended amount of time.

Basically, Chadwick should have been hauled out of county jail within a short amount of time and charged with theft of the money under a criminal court, with criminal evidence standards and a jury. Anything else is not justice, even though I'm sure that UWSalt's description of the actual actions in this case as legal is correct.

Seriously? You're comparing bypassing due process in the case of probable fraud to a contagious disease that can kill lots of people?

Is there any indication that putting this guy in jail was to _prevent_ criminal behavior rather than as punishment for past acts? Any indication at all other than your extremely inept analogy?

Actual it was neither punishment to prevention. He was in jail to compel compliance with the court's order.

I can buy that that was the initial rationale for the imprisonment, but not five or ten years down the line. He was eventually released because it was decided that there was no coercive effect, but I can't fathom how it took 14 years to come to that conclusion. Even a decade behind bars would seem excessive: if someone isn't going to hand over the money after ten years behind bars, it strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely that they ever will.

This is even more the case when it was earned money (as I believe was the case here). If you're a bank robber and you steal $2.5 million, that's $2.5 million for essentially no work. You've not earned it in any meaningful sense, and the opportunity cost of your imprisonment is basically nothing. Doing a stretch inside to ensure you keep the proceeds could still be financially worthwhile. But for a dude who apparently makes a decent income as a lawyer? Every day inside is a day not practising and not earning money.

Peter, the appeals court rules on past findings of fact. They are not a trial. The system is similar to the one in the UK. He was appealing past decisions. New motions of changed facts would have their own record. Stop conflating the two.

Seriously? You're comparing bypassing due process in the case of probable fraud to a contagious disease that can kill lots of people?

Is there any indication that putting this guy in jail was to _prevent_ criminal behavior rather than as punishment for past acts? Any indication at all other than your extremely inept analogy?

Actual it was neither punishment to prevention. He was in jail to compel compliance with the court's order.

My point was that different purposes of confinement have different standards of due process.

I'm aware that the judge didn't do anything that violated the legal code.

I'm saying that it violates the concept of due process, and it was unnecessary to do so as they had the avenue to charge the guy with criminal behavior.

And of course it was 'punishment', he was being punished for not complying with the order. The fact that they used 'punishment' to compel just means that they saw it as more effective than just saying 'pretty please' (even if it wasn't).

I think its pretty simple to prevent a perverse incentive in cases like the one we're discussing. Once the defendant is found in contempt, that defendant is imprisoned in county for a relatively short time period (say 30 days), with that time span being the amount of time allowed for the defendant to make good faith efforts to correct the action/inaction that led to the contempt charge and avoid further repercussions. After said time period is up, the defendant is now charged with a criminal offense, and proceeds through the criminal court system with the trial being presided over by a different judge. This provides three benefits. One, the defendant is subject to a more firmly coercive penalty (fix it or get convicted as a criminal and sent to jail for real). Two, the defendant is now held to the standards of criminal law and justice before he/she may be imprisoned for a period of time matching a criminal conviction. Three, there is no longer the possibility of imprisoning a person for an undefined and open-ended amount of time.

In this case perhaps you could do that, but what about where there is no underlying crime other than refusing a court's order. Say, for example, refusing to testify in a murder trial?

I'm saying that it violates the concept of due process, and it was unnecessary to do so as they had the avenue to charge the guy with criminal behavior.

Which part of the concept of due process does it violate. There was process. Are you saying it was inadequate?

If so, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Clearly it isn't your contention that every involuntary confinement requires a full blown criminal process (hence the quarantine hypothetical). So why exactly does it in this case?

It doesn't look like UWSalt has joined this thread so I'm not sure if he'll see this, but...

UWSalt wrote:

Crazy talk. An exceptionally stubborn individual might hold out in prison for a few years, at most, but faith in the idea that he'd hold out for 14 years is very, very base-y indeed.

I am utterly confused by this comment from the other thread. Isn't this exactly what you've been arguing all along? That he had the ability to pay but didn't?

You have to go to a, rather obnoxious, preceding comment to get the context.

Jhhnn wrote:

Well, the money trail obviously ends at the Panamanian bank, so the defendant's contention that he lost it in business dealings is entirely plausible. That doesn't justify his behavior up to that point, but the notion that he'd spend 14 years in prison rather than pay defies reason entirely.

Or perhaps he could have been induced to do so if tied up in stress positions, subjected to extremes of heat & cold, water-boarded, or had his genitalia wired to a trusty hand cranked field telephone ringer...

An exceptionally stubborn individual might hold out in prison for a few years, at most, but faith in the idea that he'd hold out for 14 years is very, very base-y indeed, as is the belief that long term incarceration is appropriate in such circumstances. It's not contempt of court, but rather debtor's prison, made possible only by the peculiarities of divorce law & the connectedness of bitter ex-wives.

I think its pretty simple to prevent a perverse incentive in cases like the one we're discussing. Once the defendant is found in contempt, that defendant is imprisoned in county for a relatively short time period (say 30 days), with that time span being the amount of time allowed for the defendant to make good faith efforts to correct the action/inaction that led to the contempt charge and avoid further repercussions. After said time period is up, the defendant is now charged with a criminal offense, and proceeds through the criminal court system with the trial being presided over by a different judge. This provides three benefits. One, the defendant is subject to a more firmly coercive penalty (fix it or get convicted as a criminal and sent to jail for real). Two, the defendant is now held to the standards of criminal law and justice before he/she may be imprisoned for a period of time matching a criminal conviction. Three, there is no longer the possibility of imprisoning a person for an undefined and open-ended amount of time.

In this case perhaps you could do that, but what about where there is no underlying crime other than refusing a court's order. Say, for example, refusing to testify in a murder trial?

Well what are you going to do there? Delay a trial for 14 years until the guy testifies? Can't do that; people facing criminal charges have a right to a speedy trial. So how exactly is imprisonment even relevant here?

In this case perhaps you could do that, but what about where there is no underlying crime other than refusing a court's order. Say, for example, refusing to testify in a murder trial?

Well what are you going to do there? Delay a trial for 14 years until the guy testifies? Can't do that; people facing criminal charges have a right to a speedy trial. So how exactly is imprisonment even relevant here?

Fine. How about if the refusal was before the grand jury? There is no statute of limitations on murder.

The judge was given a lot of evidence he was lying. There was a record at trial. You seem to have a blind spot for that.

Either it's enough evidence to prosecute him with, or it isn't.

If it is, then charge him with a crime.

If it isn't, then holding him in contempt is an end-around the due process.

This confuses me. If a person is trying to decieve the court in a trial you are expecting another trial to occur where the matter before that court is the issue of deception in the previous trial?

Why am I sensing some sort of infinite regress?

How is perjury normally handled? Or fraud in civil cases? Why is this case special?

Because it isn't perjury but contempt?

Quote:

There is no infinite regress because he was never charged with a crime in the first place. Once he's charged with the crime, the evidence is presented, and he is either convicted or found innocent, then due process has been satisfied.

Sorry, but you're not following your own logic. You are saying he should be put on trial for the contempt, so there WOULD BE a second trial where he could indeed engage in the same behavior which resulted in the second trail, leading to a third trial where. . . .

Peter, the appeals court rules on past findings of fact. They are not a trial. The system is similar to the one in the UK. He was appealing past decisions. New motions of changed facts would have their own record. Stop conflating the two.

The claim that he didn't have the money any longer wasn't a "changed fact".

I'm saying that it violates the concept of due process, and it was unnecessary to do so as they had the avenue to charge the guy with criminal behavior.

Which part of the concept of due process does it violate. There was process. Are you saying it was inadequate?

If so, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Clearly it isn't your contention that every involuntary confinement requires a full blown criminal process (hence the quarantine hypothetical). So why exactly does it in this case?

Yes, the process is inadequate. As people have already noted, he has received equivalent punishment to criminal behavior without the due process of being convicted of a criminal offense.

Because they supposedly had evidence of criminal activity indicating that he hid the money. His entire contempt incarceration is based off this supposition that he engaged in criminal activity to hide this money.

If he hadn't supposedly engaged in this criminal activity, they would have no reason to be holding him in contempt in the first place because there would be no question about where the money actually is.

Therefore, charge him with the criminal activity.

Your quarantine confinement relies on an imminent threat to the health and welfare of any number of human beings. To use this extreme example to then extrapolate that therefore _any_ reason for involuntary confinement is reasonable is obviously silly. Thus, I think it's up to you to justify it rather than for me to assume that, by default, people should be allowed to be confined involuntarily without criminal convictions.

First, there needs to be a first trial, which divorce court does not satisfy as he wasn't on trial. So first, charges of fraud etc need to be placed on him, and then the first trial occurs. And the evidence of his fraud during divorce proceedings is presented, and then he's sentenced. I'm not following how this becomes recursive in your minds.

How is perjury normally handled? Or fraud in civil cases? Why is this case special?

Because it isn't perjury but contempt?

I think you missed a few steps that have been discussed. The reason that he was held in contempt is because the judge believed that the guy lied (perjury) about where the money was, and the the money was moved out of the country to avoid access (fraud).

Without the judges belief in these underlying criminal activities, the judge would have no reason to hold the guy in contempt.

That's the whole point, instead of holding him in contempt for 14 years because you think he's lying and committed fraud, how about you actually charge and convict him of perjury and fraud?

Quote:

Quote:

There is no infinite regress because he was never charged with a crime in the first place. Once he's charged with the crime, the evidence is presented, and he is either convicted or found innocent, then due process has been satisfied.

Sorry, but you're not following your own logic. You are saying he should be put on trial for the contempt, so there WOULD BE a second trial where he could indeed engage in the same behavior which resulted in the second trail, leading to a third trial where. . . .

So yes, there is an infinite regress.

No, he should be put on trial for fraud and perjury. A criminal trial, not a civil trial.

There is no infinite regress, the matter under trial would be different, and the evidence which the judge is using as a basis for his contempt would instead serve to convict him, assuming it reaches the proper bar.

This is like when the US holds suspects indefinitely and never releases them or charges them with a crime. They claim they're certain the people are terrorists, but don't have enough evidence to take them to trial.

The court claims that he has the money, but can't prove it, and don't want to release him in case he does have the money. It's disgusting in both cases.

What do you think about indefinite confinement for being a sexual dangerous predator, after having already served the sentence for your crime(s)?

Quote:

Because they supposedly had evidence of criminal activity indicating that he hid the money. His entire contempt incarceration is based off this supposition that he engaged in criminal activity to hide this money.

It isn't a crime to wire money to Panama. The illegality, such as it is, was disobeying a court order.

In this case perhaps you could do that, but what about where there is no underlying crime other than refusing a court's order. Say, for example, refusing to testify in a murder trial?

Well what are you going to do there? Delay a trial for 14 years until the guy testifies? Can't do that; people facing criminal charges have a right to a speedy trial. So how exactly is imprisonment even relevant here?

Fine. How about if the refusal was before the grand jury? There is no statute of limitations on murder.

You mean if the accused were released until such a time as the person was willing to testify, and proceedings (re-)started once they agreed to co-operate?

That would resolve the problem for the alleged murderer, but I would still regard it as objectionable, as I don't believe the court should have the right to force anyone to be subject to cross-examination. Coercing the delivery of static, pre-existing documents is one thing. Those records already exist, and already say whatever it is to say. I don't see why anyone should be compelled to deliver anything more than that, and as a practical matter, don't even see how they can be. I mean, how could you ever trust the testimony of someone taking the stand against their will?

What do you think about indefinite confinement for being a sexual dangerous predator, after having already served the sentence for your crime(s)?

1. Link needs fixing

2. Depends on the situation. I'll need to read the case but if they're deemed mentally ill then yes they should be incarcerated in a mental health facility until they are declared sane or die. Sucks to have mental illness but society's safety comes before the freedoms of a dangerous individual. However if they're just a bad person, no, they should be released after they serve their sentence.

You fail to recognize what is being said with the issue of quarantine. The comparison is not about the particulars of quarantine to offending the court but rather to the nature of government's ability to isolate an individual based on larger societal need.

Why do people get locked up for committing a crime? The need to preserve order in society whereby if a person wrongs others those others are not left to their own devices for enacting punishment.

Why do people who are contagious with communicable disease get locked up (providing they do not voluntarily isolate themselves)? Again, for the need to safeguard the well-being of society.

A finding of contempt by a court resulting in being jailed is based on the notion that if you are undermining the functioning of the courts you are endangering the process by which people are disposed to allow government to enact justice on their behalf--something that gets back to people finding it more expedient to enact their own justice.

You demand that there be a trial before the person is locked up, but the person is already before an entity which exercizes the ability to have people locked up. What justification is there for some secondary process when presumably we already trust the court to exercise said power?

What do you think about indefinite confinement for being a sexual dangerous predator, after having already served the sentence for your crime(s)?

On the fence. Presumably this is more related to your TB example where someone is deemed an imminent threat to health and safety? If you assume that it is a mental illness, as they suggest, then it's little different than other cases of involuntary confinement of the dangerously mentally ill.

Is there any particular reason why we should treat it differently? Do you not buy the 'mental illness' aspect of the case? Or the imminent threat?

What do you think about indefinite confinement for being a sexual dangerous predator, after having already served the sentence for your crime(s)?

Looks deeply unjust to me. It opens the door to arbitrary confinement for an enormous number of people, both criminal and otherwise, due to their "likelihood" of committing a criminal act due to some personality disorder. The Kansas law restricts it to certain kinds of sexual predation, but what would stop similar laws allowing the arbitrary detention of people because of a propensity towards violence, theft, dangerous driving, or whatever else?

More broadly, I don't believe that the justice system should, in general, have any pre-emptive role. It should be essentially reactive: attempting to deliver justice in the event that a wrong has been committed. Making it proactive--imprisoning people just in case they do something wrong--is deeply distasteful.

You demand that there be a trial before the person is locked up, but the person is already before an entity which exercizes the ability to have people locked up. What justification is there for some secondary process when presumably we already trust the court to exercise said power?

Since we're gonna use irrelevant strawmen, here's one: That's exactly why Zimmerman was 100% justified in killing a home invader. Why have the bother of the court, he knows a robber when he sees one. Saves everyone the time and trouble of charging someone with a crime and pesky due process.

You fail to recognize what is being said with the issue of quarantine. The comparison is not about the particulars of quarantine to offending the court but rather to the nature of government's ability to isolate an individual based on larger societal need.

Why do people get locked up for committing a crime? The need to preserve order in society whereby if a person wrongs others those others are not left to their own devices for enacting punishment.

Why do people who are contagious with communicable disease get locked up (providing they do not voluntarily isolate themselves)? Again, for the need to safeguard the well-being of society.

A finding of contempt by a court resulting in being jailed is based on the notion that if you are undermining the functioning of the courts you are endangering the process by which people are disposed to allow government to enact justice on their behalf--something that gets back to people finding it more expedient to enact their own justice.

You demand that there be a trial before the person is locked up, but the person is already before an entity which exercizes the ability to have people locked up. What justification is there for some secondary process when presumably we already trust the court to exercise said power?

There is already a functional mechanism for pre-trial detention; it's called "denying bail", and it would be reasonable in both a hypothetical criminal prosecution of Chadwick (due to flight risk, etc.) or a quarantine case (due to public endangerment). This detention is naturally restricted in duration, because of the right to a speedy trial. I don't think Ozy meant to discard that.

You fail to recognize what is being said with the issue of quarantine. The comparison is not about the particulars of quarantine to offending the court but rather to the nature of government's ability to isolate an individual based on larger societal need.

You are reading that far too generally. The quarantine allows incarceration because the person poses a significant, imminent, and deadly threat to the health and well being of others.

Such is not the case in this contempt proceedings. It's not even in the same universe.

Quote:

Why do people get locked up for committing a crime? The need to preserve order in society whereby if a person wrongs others those others are not left to their own devices for enacting punishment.

Why do people who are contagious with communicable disease get locked up (providing they do not voluntarily isolate themselves)? Again, for the need to safeguard the well-being of society.

Read too generally, this allows the government to lock up anyone for any reason for the 'good of society'. Therefore I have to assume that specific cases require specific bars (as they do). I am complaining that in this case, the incarceration:threat:evidence bar ratios are askew, not that nobody can be jailed for contempt ever for any length of time.

Quote:

A finding of contempt by a court resulting in being jailed is based on the notion that if you are undermining the functioning of the courts you are endangering the process by which people are disposed to allow government to enact justice on their behalf--something that gets back to people finding it more expedient to enact their own justice.

You demand that there be a trial before the person is locked up, but the person is already before an entity which exercizes the ability to have people locked up. What justification is there for some secondary process when presumably we already trust the court to exercise said power?

Because the standards for lengthy incarceration should be a lot higher than at the sole discretion of a judge. That's why we have jury trials for criminals in the first place. If 'contempt' undermines the justice system enough to warrant incarcerations up to 14 years, then the bar for which contempt is determined needs to be commensurately raised to the level of similar criminal activity.

To do otherwise _I_ believe undermines the justice system more than the contempt itself.

More broadly, I don't believe that the justice system should, in general, have any pre-emptive role. It should be essentially reactive: attempting to deliver justice in the event that a wrong has been committed. Making it proactive--imprisoning people just in case they do something wrong--is deeply distasteful.

At least per the Supreme Court, civil confinement for sexually dangerous predators isn't a part of the (criminal) Justice system. It is a civil matter, just like quarantine for infectious diseases.

On the fence. Presumably this is more related to your TB example where someone is deemed an imminent threat to health and safety? If you assume that it is a mental illness, as they suggest, then it's little different than other cases of involuntary confinement of the dangerously mentally ill.

Is there any particular reason why we should treat it differently? Do you not buy the 'mental illness' aspect of the case? Or the imminent threat?

My question more goes towards the relevant process rather than whether it ought to be allowed at all. What exactly must the government prove, before whom and to what standard of proof?